Chairman Eric Schmidt should heed his own advice – and base energy policies on facts
Guest essay by Paul Driessen and Chris Skates
In a recent interview with National Public Radio host Diane Rehm, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said his company “has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts. And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. We should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.”
While he didn’t vilify us by name, Mr. Schmidt was certainly targeting us, the climate scientists who collect and summarize thousands of articles for the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered reports, the hundreds who participate in Heartland Institute climate conferences, and the 31,487 US scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition, attesting that there is no convincing scientific evidence that humans are causing catastrophic warming or climate disruption.
All of us are firm skeptics of claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. We are not climate change “deniers.” We know Earth’s climate and weather are constantly in flux, undergoing recurrent fluctuations that range from flood and drought cycles to periods of low or intense hurricane and tornado activity, to the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD) and Little Ice Age (1350-1850) – and even to Pleistocene glaciers that repeatedly buried continents under a mile of ice.
What we deny is the notion that humans can prevent these fluctuations, by ending fossil fuel use and emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, which plays only an insignificant role in climate change.
The real deniers are people who think our climate was and should remain static and unchanging, such as 1900-1970, supposedly – during which time Earth actually warmed and then cooled, endured the Dust Bowl, and experienced periods of devastating hurricanes and tornadoes.
The real deniers refuse to recognize that natural forces dictate weather and climate events. They deny that computer model predictions are completely at odds with real world events, that there has been no warming since 1995, and that several recent winters have been among the coldest in centuries in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. They refuse to acknowledge that, as of December 25, it’s been 3,347 days since a Category 3-5 hurricane hit the US mainland; this is by far the longest such stretch since record-keeping began in 1900, if not since the American Civil War.
Worst of all, they deny that their “solutions” hurt our children and grandchildren, by driving up energy prices, threatening electricity reliability, thwarting job creation, and limiting economic growth in poor nations to what can be sustained via expensive wind, solar, biofuel and geothermal energy. Google’s corporate motto is “Don’t be evil.” From our perspective, perpetuating poverty, misery, disease and premature death in poor African and Asian countries – in the name or preventing climate change – is evil.
It is truly disturbing that Mr. Schmidt could make a statement so thoroughly flawed in its basic premise. He runs a multi-billion dollar company that uses vast quantities of electricity to disseminate information throughout the world. Perhaps he should speak out on issues he actually understands. Perhaps he would be willing to debate us or Roy Spencer, David Legates, Pat Michaels and other climate experts.
Setting aside the irrational loyalty of alarmists like Schmidt to a failed “dangerous manmade climate change” hypothesis, equally disturbing is the money wasted because of it. Consider an article written for the Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers’ summit website by Google engineers Ross Koningstein and David Fork, who worked on Google’s “RE<C” renewable energy initiative.
Beginning in 2007, they say, “Google committed significant resources to tackle the world’s climate and energy problems. A few of these efforts proved very successful: Google deployed some of the most energy efficient data centers in the world, purchased large amounts of renewable energy, and offset what remained of its carbon footprint.”
It’s wonderful that Google improved the energy efficiency of its power-hungry data centers. But the project spent countless dollars and man hours. To what other actual benefits? To address precisely what climate and energy problems? And how exactly did Google offset its carbon footprint? By buying “carbon credits” from outfits like the New Forests Company, which drove impoverished Ugandan villagers out of their homes, set fire to their houses and burned a young boy to death?
What if, as skeptics like us posit and actual evidence reflects, man-made climate change is not in fact occurring? That would mean there is no threat to humans or our planet, and lowering Google’s CO2 footprint would bring no benefits. In fact, it would keep poor nations poverty stricken and deprived of modern technologies – and thus unable to adapt to climate change. Imagine what Google could have accomplished if its resources had been channeled to solving actual problems with actual solutions!
In 2011, the company decided its RE<C project would not meet its goals. Google shut it down. In their article, Koningstein and Fork admit that the real result of all of their costly research was to reach the following conclusion: “green energy is simply not economically, viable and resources that we as a society waste in trying to make it so would be better used to improve the efficiencies in established energy technologies like coal.”
Skeptics like us reached that conclusion long ago. It is the primary reason for our impassioned pleas that that the United States and other developed nations stop making energy policy decisions based on the flawed climate change hypothesis. However, the article’s most breathtaking statement was this:
“Climate scientists have definitively shown that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere poses a looming danger…. A 2008 paper by James Hansen, former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies… showed the true gravity of the situation. In it, Hansen set out to determine what level of atmospheric CO2 society should aim for ‘if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.’ His climate models showed that exceeding 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere would likely have catastrophic effects. We’ve already blown past that limit. Right now, environmental monitoring shows concentrations around 400 ppm.…”
We would never presume to question the sincerity, intellect, dedication or talent of these two authors. However, this statement presents a stunning failure in applying Aristotelian logic. Even a quick reading would make the following logical conclusions instantly obvious:
1. Hansen theorized that 350 ppm of atmospheric CO2 would have catastrophic results.
2. CO2 did indeed reach this level, and then exceeded it by a significant amount.
3. There were no consequences, much less catastrophic results, as our earlier points make clear.
4. Therefore, real-world evidence clearly demonstrates that Hansen’s hypothesis is wrong.
This kind of reasoning (the scientific method) has served progress and civilization well since the Seventeenth Century. But the Google team has failed to apply it; instead it repeats the “slash fossil fuel use or Earth and humanity are doomed” tautology, without regard for logic or facts – while questioning CAGW skeptics intelligence, character and ethics. Such an approach would be disastrous in business.
We enthusiastically support Eric Schmidt’s admonition that our nation base its policy decisions on facts, even when those facts do not support an apocalyptic environmental worldview. We also support President Obama’s advice that people should not “engage in self-censorship,” because of bullying or “because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of someone whose sensibilities probably need to be offended.”
In fact, we will keep speaking out, regardless of what Messsrs. Schmidt, Hansen and Obama might say.
______________
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the save-the-earth money machine. Chris Skates is an environmental chemist and author of Going Green: For some it has nothing to do with the environment.
Is this published here by permission of Townhall? Or is WUWT a content scraping site now?
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2014/12/26/google-goes-off-the-climate-change-deep-end-n1935798/page/full
[REPLY: The author, Paul Dreissen, sent the essay to me directly (along with many other people) with an offer to publish it. he also sent me a note of thanks for doing so. – Anthony]
Schmidt can’t be a complete idiot being the chairman of Google, so it is troubling he feels it necessary to make such an idiotic statement. Everyone knows the climate is changing and apparently people are opposing it? Is this supposed to make sense? Unless we stop the climate from changing we are hurting generations of children?
Just as obvious as the climate is changing and has always changed, Schmidt is carrying water for political reasons in exchange for monetary and other favors from the government enhancing his investments. The guy is not an idiot but cannot be more transparent.
I agree Alx. His (Schmidt’s) position shows that he is afraid to counter the government and alarmistas. They could still cause his company greater harm than any warming could.
“People who oppose [climate change] are really hurting our children and grandchildren.”
I embrace climate change, which I recognize as a natural phenomenon; I don’t oppose it in the least. I think Mr. Schmidt does, however, and I believe that he is correct about hurting our children and grandchildren. I don’t think he’s worried at all about his. “Bugger thy neighbor” says Schmidt.
Koch Brothers are evil because … money. Google money is good because … scientists. Revolving nonsense.
Some climate change we are having,
“Bumper harvests and abundant stockpiles are key factors helping drive down international cereal prices, according to the report released on Thursday.
World wheat production in 2014 is forecast to reach a new record, it says.
For coarse grains, prospects for near-record production levels, combined with already-high inventories point to a very comfortable world supply and demand balance in 2014/15, especially for maize.
While rice outputs could decline slightly this year, stockpiles remain “huge” and are sufficient to cover over one-third of projected consumption during the 2015-16 period.
All told, world cereal production in 2014 is anticipated to reach 2.523 million tons (2.5bn tons) — an upward revision of 65 million tons from FAO’s initial forecast in May. World cereal stocks should hit their highest level in 15 years by the end of the cropping season in 2015”
Follow the money. The disastrous Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System is partially owned by Google. Incinerating birds, not working up to expectations, and seeking a taxpayer bailout. But leave it to Google to keep pushing a failed green agenda. Do no evil???
Climate change,good or bad is not really as important as the fact that we have to quit polluting and plundering the earth. It can only take so much. Renewable energy is absolutely necessary at some point or we do ourselves in. All the money spent arguing climate change would be much better spent funding clean energy.
“It can only take so much.”
And how much, precisely, is that?
“And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore.”
It is unfortunate when people like Mr Schmidt speak up about climate change caused by global warming , they fail to check what is happening to the climate in their own land. Where is the global warming that caused all this climate change ?
“They’re just literally lying.” I wonder who is lying to who, Mr Schmidt.. There is no global warming in United States.
CONTIGUOUS US TEMPERATURE TRENDS 1998-2014 [17 YEARS]
PER NCDC/NOAA CLIMATE AT A GLANCE WEB PAGE
WINTER -1.79 F/DECADE
6 MONTHS (SEPT-FEB) -0.98 F/DECADE
9MONTHS (SEPT-MAY) -0.67 F/DECADE
FALL -0.49 F/DECADE
SPRING -0.06 F/DECADE
SUMMER + 0.23 F/DECADE
ANNUAL -0.36 F/DECADE
ILLINOIS WINTER -3.3 F/DECADE
ILLINOIS FEB -6.6 F/DECADE
Paul Driessen and Chris Gates:
“… this statement presents a stunning failure in applying Aristotelian logic. …..This kind of reasoning (the scientific method) has served progress and civilization well since the Seventeenth Century.”
The authors are right to point out the logical inadequacies of the statement they criticise but they are wrong to persist in the myth that modern science began in the seventeenth century. Adelard of Bath, Thierry of Chartres, Robert Grosseteste, William of Auvergne, Albert Magnus, Roger Bacon, Etienne Tempier and Jean Buridan all lived well before the seventeenth century. In fact they were all alive during the “terrible” Middle Ages.
As to Aristotle, his scientific ideas were based on pantheism and so, for example, he asserted that if two bodies were dropped from the same height at the same time, the one with twice the weight of the other one would fall twice as fast because it had twice the nature and twice the desire to do so. (On the Heavens, Book 1, Part 6, third paragraph.)
It took many centuries for Aristotle’s’ scientific notions to be rejected and when they were rejected it was due to the rejection of pantheism by those who believed in a Creator who was separate from His creation, not part of it. The people who believed that were, of course, Christians.
And, by the way, Nigel S, Galileo was never tortured and anybody who has studied modern literature on the Inquisition knows that torture was rarely used by the Inquisition. the idea of the Inquisition making widespread use of torture was put about by two groups of people: Protestants in general because they disliked the Catholic Church, and people, mainly Dutch, who were anti-Spanish. It is a pity that so many people are still misled by the falsehoods of the Black Legend.
I bet there was a consensus who agreed that Troy should tear down part of the wall and bring in that wonderful work of Greek technology.
The idea that action on climate change will harm poor countries is disingenuous. The Kyoto Protocol doesn’t apply to underdeveloped countries, and almost everyone agrees that the burden of reducing CO2 should fall primarily on wealthy nations who are the primary drivers of climate change.
Chris, please go fine the “Hot Spot” before the gravy train stops.
Don’t let the facts hit you in the head. Low and middle income countries account for around 50% of oxygen (CO2) emissions, meaning wealthy nations can’t be the “primary” drivers. China, for example, is nearly double the U.S., and is growing at almost 10% per year, while the U.S. and Europe are shrinking.
But you did say “climate change” not CO2. So how do you conjecture that this “climate change” is being “driven”? I thought that the agitprop orthodoxy was that is was via CO2, which would falsify your claim that it is primarily “wealthy” nations “driving climate change”, would it not?
Penncyl, do you have a source for your claim that low and middle income countries account for 50% of CO2 emissions? This chart from the EPA contradicts that claim:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
Hmm, looking at the chart, it seems to support my assertion rather than refute it.
Also there’s this (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT) I’ll let you do the arithmetic — if you’re genuinely curious it shouldn’t be a big deal.
Your statement is beyond disingenuous. Since Kyoto, the idea that poor nations must forgo the use of cheap fossil fuels to build their energy infrastructures is de rigueur among totalitarian greens. Almost no one agrees that the people of any nation should be burdened with costly CO2 reduction schemes- no one except those who would usurp power and wealth via forced adaptation of green measures, that is- and their willing propagandists.
“Your statement is beyond disingenuous. Since Kyoto, the idea that poor nations must forgo the use of cheap fossil fuels to build their energy infrastructures is de rigueur among totalitarian greens.”
Can you name them? I’m genuinely curious as to what you are talking about.
Your search engine works just fine.
I Googled and found this statement from James Hansen:
“The second scenario, labeled Coal Phase-out, is meant to approximate a situation in which developed countries freeze their CO2 emissions from coal by 2012 and a decade later developing countries similarly halt increases in coal emissions. Between 2025 and 2050 it is assumed that both developed and developing countries will linearly phase out emissions of CO2 from coal usage. Thus in Coal Phase-out we have global CO2 emissions from coal increasing 2% per year until 2012, 1% per year growth of coal emissions between 2013 and 2022, flat coal emissions for 2023–2025, and finally a linear decrease to zero CO2 emissions from coal in 2050. These rates refer to emissions to the atmosphere and do not constrain consumption of coal, provided the CO2 is captured and sequestered. Oil and gas emissions are assumed to be the same as in the BAU [Business as Usual] scenario.”
Again, who are the “totalitarian greens” arguing that poor nations need to immediately cease the use of cheap fossil fuels? It seems like what people are arguing is that wealthy nations should take the lead in decreasing coal emissions, and poorer nations should follow down the line. Keep in mind these targets are almost never hit–the U.S. is continuing to spend far more on fossil fuels than climate aid–so the “alarmism” would seem to be coming from those who claim that protecting the environment will be the death of business and free enterprise, as they have always claimed.
“Again, who are the “totalitarian greens…”
Well, You just found and listed James Hansen…
I just knew that your own search engine worked. Try a less common troll trick, next time.
Chris: The main obstacle in the way of poor countries electrifying is occurring behind the scenes. They find it very hard to get loans from the World Bank or from foreign aid from rich countries to build non-sustainable power plants. South Africa is involved in a recent fruitless struggle to do so. I imagine that also applies to projects that would increase consumption of petroleum, even indirectly.
Chris, there is no climate change. Have you missed the fact that for the last 18 years there has been no warming whatsoever? Do you know that the greenhouse theory of IPCC has been forecasting warming for every one of these 18 years and getting nothing? Do you know that in science a theory that predicts impossible things is considered invalid and must be discarded? Do you understand that 18 wrong predictions in a row is enough to prove that it belongs in the waste basket of history? Simply because it does not obey the laws of nature. An alternative greenhouse theory that does obey the laws of nature is called the Miskolczi greenhouse theory. It predicts what we see: addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, contrary to what you have been told, does not warm the world. That takes care of the alleged greenhouse warming that IPCC has been babbling about.. With that, anthropogenic global warming or AGW is proven to be non-existent. It is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific fantasy, cooked up by over-eager climate workers to justify their greenhouse hypothesis which has turned out to be false. But based on this falsehood, we are subjected to irrational laws of emission control and other worthless and very expensive efforts to stop a non-existent global warming.
“Have you missed the fact that for the last 18 years there has been no warming whatsoever?”
That’s not entirely true. 2005 and 2010 were both hotter than 1998, which was an unusually hot year. It’s true that most years since have seen relatively flat temperatures, but that doesn’t change the fact that 14 of the past 15 years have been among the warmest on record.
The warmest on record? You mean, since the Little Ice Age and the invention of thermometers, right?
Chris said, “2005 and 2010 were both hotter than 1998, which was an unusually hot year. It’s true that most years since have seen relatively flat temperatures, but that doesn’t change the fact that 14 of the past 15 years have been among the warmest on record.”
The upslope in warming since 1998 and 2003 is much flatter than what was predicted. If warmist scientists and others in their camp had been asked, back then, to give odds on such a flattish slope, they’d likely have given 50-to1 against. That implies there’s something wrong with their understanding of how the climate system works.
Every year that the divergence grows–and it will grow even if 2014 is the warmest year yet (by a tiny amount)–their claim that they understand the basics of what’s going on will become less credible.
#1 Kyoto is dead. That is a non sequitur.
#2 Energy is a global commodity. The price is not set by country, and the market does not discriminate between rich and poor ones, so when you increase the cost, you impoverish the poor more (who can afford it the least). So yes it does.
The idea that the concerted efforts of the human population can affect the weather has never been proven.
It never will, cus we’re a bunch of murderous bastards only looking after our own well being.
Sometimes we slip, and get sentimental though.
First I apologize, my original post was snotty, and I was wrong on 2 points; I see that the fake names I cited are no longer on the list, as I probably should have expected. I also did not know that sociology wouldn’t qualify. Nevertheless, while everyone is entitled to an opinion, most hard science degrees are still insufficient qualification to contribute to climate change policy. It seems an obvious point, but you wouldn’t ask even the most brilliant electronic engineer how to best treat treat a cancer. On top of this is the verifiability problem.
Another important point is that this petition is old. It is unfair to claim 31000 among your ranks when over the past 15 years many have changed their minds.
Yes, but you would ask a statistician about the validity of your statistical methods regardless of the field of study in which you applied those methods, right?
And what would you say about “science” that was based on poor (or downright invalid) statistical methods? Would a qualified statistician who said that a “climate” paper was invalid because the statistical methods used don’t support its conclusions be qualified to contribute to “climate change policy”?
James, your suggestion that many of the original 31,000 signatories may have changed their minds would likely be more than balanced by even more scientists in recent times who would be eager to sign an updated petition, since extraordinarily much more information has come to light in the intervening years, which debunks the original climate fear screeds. By the way, have you ever seen the “climate science” pedigrees of those who have been the loudest voices proclaiming climate doom? You might avail yourself of such easy to find information…
Keep taking an honest look at the facts.
Someone with a hard science degree should know how to tell if whatever the topic is has been handled in an honest scientific manner.
As has been pointed out, many of the “names” espousing CAGW and/or AGW don’t have degrees in the field either. (Just how long have degrees in “Climate Science” been offered anyway?)
As far as the petition being “old”, it’s not as old as Hansen’s testimony that day when the AC was sabotaged and definitely not old as Mann’s tree-ring circus. And the petition flew in the face of the claims at the time that practically all scientist, the “consensus” before it had a number, agreed that the CAGW science was settled.
How true, I recommend you read the CRU emails to see how “Real Qualified” climatologists behave.
Ever enjoyed any Gilbert &Sullivan performances?
What does sociology have to do with science? Apart from your statement that everyone is entitled to an opinion..?
And what does your obsession with petitions have to do with the words of the head of Google?
Was there some relevancy hidden here that escaped my attention?
Fyi the most expensive part of a data center is the cooling. The man hours used to make the processing more efficient (cooler) returns big bucks. They would be stupid not to save that money.
Then why is Google building their data centers in the south where you’d have to pump the AC 10 months out of the year BEFORE thousands of servers heat up the facility’s interior? Why isn’t Schmidt building data centers in Minnesota or Idaho or Montana, right next to the wind farms that he’s purchasing green credits from? Don’t you think putting money where Schmidt’s mouth is would cut back HVAC costs even more, returning your ‘big bucks’? Why put your data centers on a separate AC grid from the wind farms, Ironargonaut?
What’s stupid is Schmidt spouting off his environmentalist Schtick while burdening the electric infrastructure in the south with his energy hogs. And what’s even more stupid is a guy falling for his gimmick and defending these idiotic, hypocritical policies.
One of the key problems is that people who are rich and successful in certain fields feel they are qualified to provide judgement on everything else and should be listened to. Perhaps the author and his colleagues could book an appointment with Mr Schmidt to give him a free briefing. Mr Schmidt could have his “experts” on hand to ask questions and refute statements. I would pay to see that.
Schmidt has probably been given private presentations by a few climatologists, plus one-sided warmist material to read and view online–including purported refutations of skeptical claims. I suspect this is what happened to the big-name Republicans who have joined or founded the Risky Business agitation group. We know that’s how Gore got converted–and stays converted. He regularly consults with “scientists I trust” to get the real deal on what’s happening.
A challenge to read a selected list of the best Contrarian articles and books should be made to them They should all be asked, at any public presentations they give, what skeptical literature they’ve read.
To put a sharp point on the challenge, they should be asked to read Judy Curry’s blog and The Delinquent Teenager …
They should also be asked if they were subjected to warmist consciousness-raising sessions and, if so, if they’d give Contrarians a session to counter what they’ve been fed.
Even Google engineers seem to admit renewable in their current state will not work
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
Google’s always been a bunch of Progressive America-haters. That’s why I use Bing:
http://twitchy.com/2014/06/14/another-win-for-bing-google-blows-off-flag-day-armys-birthday-with-world-cup-doodle-pics/
Out of the frying pan . . .
Thing is without Google we’d still be in the dark ages of the internet.
The ones who claim other browsers or search engines don’t use your personal data tells me how much you lack in technology.
Dwight Eisenhower was right about the threat posed by a scientific elite! And Google certainly is part of today’s scientific elite … being in a dominant position to influence not just the US but the world, with a campaign of disinformation disguised as fact. The Nazis and the Communists would be envious of Google… that it has achieved that which they could not achieve … being in a position to so readily influence the global masses without accountability.
…….”They’re just literally lying.”
=======
Ya wanna raise my ire, that’s the word to use.
Schmidt is just literally, an idiot. I am literally sure. And Google is literally a poor choice of search engine.
Can we get together and put in a formal complaint to Google and demand an apology for the insult to our intelligence compared to his blatant ignorance and blind faith in climate science? To be proven beyond question at the very least the question that needs an answer yes is “were your predictions perfect and 100% accurate for the entire duration since you first claimed the theory”.
A powerful brainwashing facility like Google has to be held seriously to account for accuracy.
A great idea, but it should not be in the form of a complaint. He has his own views with which 99 per cent of blogs on this subject rightly disagree. Lets just make sure that the facts are placed in his hands and courteously invite him to reply. Perhaps we should send him a printout of all our blogs on this subject to provide him with a little late night reading, although I am sure his attention has been brought to this site, and who knows, he may have read everyone’s blogs so far!
As in all things you must understand why CO2 presents a problem above or under certain amounts. It is the heat gain to loss balance of the planet. We currently have a very warm blanket with the sun out. At first we only feel slightly warmer, but as heat can no longer escape fast enough we start continually getting warmer. We currently have more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been at any point during mammals existance. Without sequestering and eliminating green house gasses we must rely on clouds to reflect heat. It is good water evaporates off the ocean faster at higher temperatures to aid in this. That means we must live with the mega storms going on below the cloud layer and hope for lots of snowfall to change the albido of the planet to reflect the heat (ice age). Or we can stop producing greenhouse gasses faster than natural processes (plants) can take it back out. So no we do not know what will happen now CO2 has passed 350 ppm, but do any of you like any of these outcomes? How about the tax payer cost to sequester the carbon that is currently subsidized to be burned?
At comment no. 322 I doubt anyone will ever read this, but I have made my choice based on facts concerning how Google behaves: my search engine is now DuckDuckGo.
Fn+End in a Linux PC and here we are, reading the comment 322.
It seems inconceivable that intelligent people with all the resources to research data have become so convinced of ’Climate Change’. The term itself is a marketing/PR brainchild and quite meaningless.
Perhaps, being in the upper echelon, they mix with those at the top that created this political absurdity and so get their information from cocktail parties and ‘group think’ conferences.
Chris wrote:
December 27, 2014 at 8:32 am
Not in your dreams buster! You wrote:
Note the present tense. And 31,487 is the current number, not the number before weeding out problematic entries. Also would you mind explaining to us why no one with the surname “Darwin” can give a child the first name “Charles” any more? After all, that would be necessary if this were to be an “obvious” fake name.
But beyond the fact that technically and strictly, you have convicted yourself as a liar, what about the wider issue that when one writes, one should be fair to one’s opponents? Why are you trying to create in the minds of less informed readers the fallacious idea that this absolutely sound petition is a load of fakery? Do you actually believe in global warming catastrophism? Or are you pushing for some ulterior motive such as a political belief? Who knows, all we actually know is you are a liar.
I leave to one side your utter cluelessness about science when you write “only less than a percent had a background in climate science, which makes the petition utterly meaningless” because your dishonesty makes you a person not entitled to be taken seriously. (But hmmm, your dishonesty makes it much more likely that you know full well that that one is a load of crock, but you say it once again for its effect on the less well informed. You (anonymous as are most cowards) are one piece of work.)
OK, I guess I did use the present tense at one point, prior to realizing that those names had been removed from the petition. It was a mistake, not an intentional lie.
“But beyond the fact that technically and strictly, you have convicted yourself as a liar, what about the wider issue that when one writes, one should be fair to one’s opponents?”
It’s really funny that you didn’t see the irony in this sentence before you hit submit.
“Okay, I lied”, would have been just fine 🙂
Chris: “Why would you tell such an obvious lie?” (that coal receives no subsidies)
It is not a lie! A reduction of tax is simply NOT a “subsidy”! Many people take the the standard IRS 1040 deduction (~$12,000?) every year which reduces their tax by a couple thousand dollars. So, despite people each sending the IRS several thousand dollars do you consider those who take that deduction to be “subsidized” by the federal government? Do you believe in unicorns?
Here’s a mind test for you Chris – imagine an earth world without fossil fuel and describe how world history would have gone since about the late 18th century?
The one material that has been and still is the greatest benefit to humanity of all time, (peace, life expectancy, comfort, education, ecology, etc.) is God given COAL. Take it away and if you were lucky enough to survive child birth you’d be trying to scratch out your subsistence in the middle of no where whipping a mule to plow your 5 acres of farmland, chopping down trees for heat and building material. IF you knew how to read you would have one book, the Bible, (handed down to you from 3 generations ago), and you would know every verse in it by heart by now. Your wife already gave birth three times but none of them lived past 6 months, your “retirement plan” is now in serious jeopardy and those Bible verses are about the only form of hope you have left.
Those who attack coal are those who want to de-industrialize the world in order to collapse civilization and have all of us including YOU to ~somehow~ return to to subsistence farming because they believe the world population is too large and that humans are some sort of planetary “disease”. Al Gore’s good friend Maurice Strong stated – “Isn’t the only hope for this planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
IMO, that one evil man, (he founded the UN environmental program which later launched the IPCC) is the fountainhead for this man made climate change scam. It’s a total ruse by progressive thugs like Maurice Strong and Al Gore who thirst for absolute power over the masses and, as repeated throughout history, the FIRST thing you have to do to take away freedom from the masses to gain control over them is to – LIE TO THEM.
And here you are lecturing to us about “obvious lies”….
The moral of this story is never, ever get good at what you do.
Stay mediocre and don’t attract attention.